This is who Steve Sarkisian is.

[closetohumping 17548]

26 minutes ago, Wally Pryor said:

There are different iterations on how Brown submarined the deal. Choose whichever you want but always believe he did just that. The pictures of him that mid December in Florida recruiting (ie., fleeing) Austin perfectly capture a thin-skinned clown who wanted nothing to do with Saban as someone who could successfully replace him. In that vein, any success Brown has had at North Carolina has been superseded by the delight of the subsequent 12 years of mediocrity at Texas.

I've no doubt he and Sally raise a glass to that every December. 

Didn’t jamail threaten litigation at some point?

[SL Xpress 7518]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

From my understanding, and I could be wrong, it's been a long time, that Dodds, egged on by one group of BMD, was supporting Barnett and Hicksco sort of forced Brown into the conversation in the 11th hour.  That's more or less a BMD competition and it would have been lost to Barnett had Nicksco's influence not affected the situation.  It had a decent ending, but wasn't some form of organized or systematic hire, even if the criteria applied to select between them were valid.

With respect to Strong, we used Korn-Ferry to assemble a list of candidates.  I'm not saying they should always or ever be used, but hey, it's organized and systematic.  That list, as I recall, was a reasonable bunch of attainable, good coaches.  Maybe not everyone's dream list, but not a ludicrous list.  The ultimate criteria may have come down from Powers or whomever to hire an AA coach, but the process was still fairly systematic by comparison to the hiring of  Herman, for example.  I think that only happened because Patterson, as a newb and total "corporate guy," did it by the "school solution," even if he got run over by the administration in the end.

Herman was a hot name and had attracted a lot of attention, probably without much real scrutiny, at UH.  We were supposedly competing head to head with LSU.  And supposedly Houston BMD were behind him.  Disorganized, unsystematic clusterfuck.

Unfortunately, Mack Brown's taste for rubbing elbows and receiving adulation from BMD, and administration, probably demolished any firewalls between BMD and coaching hires that Dodds may have tried to erect.  So that brought BMD right back into the forefront.

And this is a perfect encapsulation of BMD stupidity. https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/alabama-football/nick-saban-mack-brown-tom-hicks-texas-regent/  Fucking hell, Hicks, why the hell are you even talking to Saban if you either a) don't want to get Mack fired or b) have him fairly committing to retirement?  Go ask Mack?  Are you fucking kidding me?  And then to run your mouth about it so Sexton won't take your calls?  Hubris?  Some form of stupidity?

 

Let's be very clear about something. Dodds was never ever ever interested in erecting a firewall/barrier between BMDs and football coaching hires. He wanted to make sure a very wealthy somebody - and better if several very wealthy somebodies - was always on the hook for football hirings and firings. That was the case with Akers/McWilliams/Mackovic and it was certainly the case with Brown. 

Dodds' job security was from pooling all the sports in the athletic department - which previously had each been responsible for their own fundraising, with most of the capital costs coming from the PUF and state legislature - into one fundraising mechanism. The Longhorn Foundation. From there, his success was measured based on how much money he brought in and how much it increased year over year. Which was staggering.

It became the modus operandi for the entire athletic department. I used to say the athletic department didn't raise money so the football team could win games. They wanted the football team to win games so they could raise more money. It's a huge distinction, and it permeated the culture. There's still vestiges of it now. To be honest, it was a much needed move and heralded UT's entry into the super rich of the college sports hierarchy. But there was never a time when Dodds' position was threatened by the moribund football program, and he made sure it stayed that way. 

In any case, Hicks and Evans were always going to be the chief decision makers regarding Mackovic's replacement. Other people had their say so, but those two made their massive campaign donations (Tom HIcks to Ann Richards, Don Evans to George Bush) to get on the BoR in the first place in large part because football was becoming an indifferent product to the administration and the powers that ran the university. For years BoR appointments had been made of people who didn't really care about football's success. With Bill Clements, orchestrator of the SMU slush fund serving two terms, Mark White, Baylor grad, and Ann Richards, Baylor grad (Tom Hicks being the exception) the BoR was filled with many political appointees who were less interested in the health of UT or its athletic programs (although there were good ones interested in the academic side, to be fair) than having the prestigious position in the first place.

I know Tom Hicks was there for both interviews, Barnett and Brown. Everyone involved flew on his plane. Darrell Royal was there for the Mack Brown interview. It's my strongest opinion that if Barnett had given the more compelling interview, or if Baddour had matched UT's offer, Gary Barnett would have been the next football coach. But it had very little to do with competing BMDs. There wasn't any real competition for who would be the deciding factor in that hiring. Hicks was Dodds' cover for that one. Just as Jim Bob Moffett had been the cover for the Mackovic hire. This idea of competing BMDs is simply untrue. Hicks was running that show with Evans on his side the whole way through. I am extraordinarily thankful for both of them, because at the time I was getting scared that football simply wasn't going to be that important any more at the University of Texas. It seems silly now, but it sure didn't feel that way in the 80s and 90s with all the enemies in the athletic department (emboldened by the Title IX settlement many of whom absolutely loathed football as anything other than a cash cow and resented the resources invested in it), on the academic side, and in the UT administration itself. And the tone is always ultimately set at the BoR level. Really, the folks who felt like Texas couldn't be a world class university if it was perceived as a football factory won some very important battles from the 70s to the 90s. It was only after Mack Brown's success galvanized the campus and demonstrated without question how empowering a successful football program could be for the institution (a narrative which is not believed by everyone, mind you, but by enough these days) that football gained its former supremacy, which in my mind hasn't left since Mack Brown was hired, even if it's still been a clusterfuck.

The bigger threat for hiring Saban was after 2013. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/sec/2013/12/13/coach-nick-saban-agrees-to-new-contract-alabama-football/4018359/

Nick Saban signs new extension on December 13.

This is after the extension sat on his desk for 8 days:

https://www.thebiglead.com/posts/nick-saban-has-had-a-contract-extension-on-his-desk-for-six-days-now-paul-finebaum-reports-update-01dmfjg2n418

I was told Saban was ready to say yes before he even received the contract extension from Alabama. Whatever Bama fans like to say, I know Bama boosters were genuinely concerned.

Steve Patterson had already been named the athletic director and was announced at a press conference on November 7.

Two days after Saban finally signs the extension, Mack Brown announces his resignation. 

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/10141946/mack-brown-says-resigned-texas-longhorns-meeting-own-standard

Mack Brown purposefully cock blocked Saban from getting the job. That's the truth of it. 

Nick Saban has always looked at the turmoil associated with Texas during that two years with disgust. All the leaks. All the different players having different objectives, with it not being clear who had the power to actually do anything. He warned Sarkisian about taking the job, although he supported him in his decision. 

BTW, it was university president Bill Powers who put the impetus on Steve Patterson to hire both an African American football coach as well as an African American basketball coach when that opportunity came up a couple of years later. 

All three of the athletic directors - Deloss Dodds, Steve Patterson, and Chris Del Conte - have tried to put a buffer between the athletic director position and the hiring of a new football coach. All three of them wanted the measure of the success of their performance to be divorced in as many ways possible from the performance on the football field. Patterson was hired specifically to cut the bloat out of the athletic department and to run it like a business. Which he did. And then he was fired for it. Thankfully. Del Conte has been a fundraiser, customer service rep, and a lubricating factor between competing interests, both inside and outside the athletic department. But you'll notice when it comes to Sarkisian, he constantly ropes in Hartzell and especially Eltife's name into the conversation. That's a political move, and a smart one at that. 

But that's also part of the issue. There's never one person who is held accountable for a poor hiring in football. It's always this broad morass, a shifting sands of responsibility. It means that whoever is hired, if they fail, even if they fail badly, no one is going to suffer the consequence of losing their job. That's just the way it is. 

[SL Xpress 7518]

40 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

Didn’t jamail threaten litigation at some point?

Yes. Constantly, actually. He became Mack Brown's mouthpiece throughout the 2013 season, really, until Mack Brown resigned. 

But he's one of the most legendary trial lawyers of all time. Of course he's going to threaten to sue. It's like breathing to him. 

I also want to point out that he gave at least $50 million to the university, with the amount likely much larger than that. He's one of the biggest benefactors of UT in its history. 

[closetohumping 17548]

24 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

Let's be very clear about something. Dodds was never ever ever interested in erecting a firewall/barrier between BMDs and football coaching hires. He wanted to make sure a very wealthy somebody - and better if several very wealthy somebodies - was always on the hook for football hirings and firings. That was the case with Akers/McWilliams/Mackovic and it was certainly the case with Brown. 

Dodds' job security was from pooling all the sports in the athletic department - which previously had each been responsible for their own fundraising, with most of the capital costs coming from the PUF and state legislature - into one fundraising mechanism. The Longhorn Foundation. From there, his success was measured based on how much money he brought in and how much it increased year over year. Which was staggering.

It became the modus operandi for the entire athletic department. I used to say the athletic department didn't raise money so the football team could win games. They wanted the football team to win games so they could raise more money. It's a huge distinction, and it permeated the culture. There's still vestiges of it now. To be honest, it was a much needed move and heralded UT's entry into the super rich of the college sports hierarchy. But there was never a time when Dodds' position was threatened by the moribund football program, and he made sure it stayed that way. 

In any case, Hicks and Evans were always going to be the chief decision makers regarding Mackovic's replacement. Other people had their say so, but those two made their massive campaign donations (Tom HIcks to Ann Richards, Don Evans to George Bush) to get on the BoR in the first place in large part because football was becoming an indifferent product to the administration and the powers that ran the university. For years BoR appointments had been made of people who didn't really care about football's success. With Bill Clements, orchestrator of the SMU slush fund serving two terms, Mark White, Baylor grad, and Ann Richards, Baylor grad (Tom Hicks being the exception) the BoR was filled with many political appointees who were less interested in the health of UT or its athletic programs (although there were good ones interested in the academic side, to be fair) than having the prestigious position in the first place.

I know Tom Hicks was there for both interviews, Barnett and Brown. Everyone involved flew on his plane. Darrell Royal was there for the Mack Brown interview. It's my strongest opinion that if Barnett had given the more compelling interview, or if Baddour had matched UT's offer, Gary Barnett would have been the next football coach. But it had very little to do with competing BMDs. There wasn't any real competition for who would be the deciding factor in that hiring. Hicks was Dodds' cover for that one. Just as Jim Bob Moffett had been the cover for the Mackovic hire. This idea of competing BMDs is simply untrue. Hicks was running that show with Evans on his side the whole way through. I am extraordinarily thankful for both of them, because at the time I was getting scared that football simply wasn't going to be that important any more at the University of Texas. It seems silly now, but it sure didn't feel that way in the 80s and 90s with all the enemies in the athletic department (emboldened by the Title IX settlement many of whom absolutely loathed football as anything other than a cash cow and resented the resources invested in it), on the academic side, and in the UT administration itself. And the tone is always ultimately set at the BoR level. Really, the folks who felt like Texas couldn't be a world class university if it was perceived as a football factory won some very important battles from the 70s to the 90s. It was only after Mack Brown's success galvanized the campus and demonstrated without question how empowering a successful football program could be for the institution (a narrative which is not believed by everyone, mind you, but by enough these days) that football gained its former supremacy, which in my mind hasn't left since Mack Brown was hired, even if it's still been a clusterfuck.

The bigger threat for hiring Saban was after 2013. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/sec/2013/12/13/coach-nick-saban-agrees-to-new-contract-alabama-football/4018359/

Nick Saban signs new extension on December 13.

This is after the extension sat on his desk for 8 days:

https://www.thebiglead.com/posts/nick-saban-has-had-a-contract-extension-on-his-desk-for-six-days-now-paul-finebaum-reports-update-01dmfjg2n418

I was told Saban was ready to say yes before he even received the contract extension from Alabama. Whatever Bama fans like to say, I know Bama boosters were genuinely concerned.

Steve Patterson had already been named the athletic director and was announced at a press conference on November 7.

Two days after Saban finally signs the extension, Mack Brown announces his resignation. 

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/10141946/mack-brown-says-resigned-texas-longhorns-meeting-own-standard

Mack Brown purposefully cock blocked Saban from getting the job. That's the truth of it. 

Nick Saban has always looked at the turmoil associated with Texas during that two years with disgust. All the leaks. All the different players having different objectives, with it not being clear who had the power to actually do anything. He warned Sarkisian about taking the job, although he supported him in his decision. 

BTW, it was university president Bill Powers who put the impetus on Steve Patterson to hire both an African American football coach as well as an African American basketball coach when that opportunity came up a couple of years later. 

All three of the athletic directors - Deloss Dodds, Steve Patterson, and Chris Del Conte - have tried to put a buffer between the athletic director position and the hiring of a new football coach. All three of them wanted the measure of the success of their performance to be divorced in as many ways possible from the performance on the football field. Patterson was hired specifically to cut the bloat out of the athletic department and to run it like a business. Which he did. And then he was fired for it. Thankfully. Del Conte has been a fundraiser, customer service rep, and a lubricating factor between competing interests, both inside and outside the athletic department. But you'll notice when it comes to Sarkisian, he constantly ropes in Hartzell and especially Eltife's name into the conversation. That's a political move, and a smart one at that. 

But that's also part of the issue. There's never one person who is held accountable for a poor hiring in football. It's always this broad morass, a shifting sands of responsibility. It means that whoever is hired, if they fail, even if they fail badly, no one is going to suffer the consequence of losing their job. That's just the way it is. 

Great stuff and all aligns with what a lot of people have heard.  I think Powers wanted shaq first but the hire was definitely going to be an AA.   Never believed the reports that mora was give a competitive offer. Mack is the reason saban is not here.  Also I find it interesting that Charlie referred to Mack as his best friend at Texas.  

[Thatguy 9049]

5 hours ago, TXpride said:

Bama kept firing coaches until they got Saban. Didn't seem to matter once they got their guy. Look up the coaching history of any blue blood program and it's usually the same story: 2 or 3 legendary coaches with long tenures, and a bunch of bums who lasted 3-4 years. Maybe Sark suddenly gets it and becomes the guy (unlikely based on history and his performance thus far), but you don't keep him around just for the sake of continuity; no program with expectations does that. If the results are still mediocre after 3-4 years, you try again.

   You don't see the difference do you? Alabama was able to lure away two PROVEN football coaches in Bear Bryant and Nick Saban to a University with no redeeming qualities outside of being dedicated to the sport. Meanwhile here we are, Texas, sitting squarely in Austin, a prettier location than Bama by far. All the recruiting a man could ask for outside his door. Yet here we are struggling to get a decent coach just like we have throughout our history. We are the second weakest Blue Blood next to Michigan. Even Notre Dame, with all their academic standards, has found a way to be relevant before we have. Texas has 3 Big12 titles, tied with Baylor and 11 less than OU. We don't have the right to talk about successful teams and how they get their coaches when we aren't them. For example, OU may have had 20 years since they've won a title but they've been consistently winning the conference all that time. That's what I mean when I say we don't think we have to pay our dues. We liken ourselves to those other teams while not having their success. 

[TwiceHorn 31688]

Someone needs to write up a Bleeding Burnt Orange for this era.  It would be fascinating.

I'm not trying to argue with you SLX, really.  I'm not really a fan of Tom Hicks.  He's quite a bit of a Jerrah to me, so I view him through that kind of lens (former football player, "powerful man"/SNL Perot skits, and failed team owner).

On Dodds' later career, you may well be right.  I just know that after the Akers/Campbell/DKR fiasco, and with some advice from DKR, Dodds initially created the LHF to try and get some separation between the Department and donations/BMD and I give him some credit for that.  I am not as familiar as you with what Dodds did subsequently in that arena.

I suppose as a general proposition, it's not impossible for BMD to run/have run an organized and systematic coaching search with or without the AD.  That's a "business-like" way to approach it, and most BMD seem to be good at business, hence the BM.  But, it sure seems like whenever they get involved in something like this, whether at Texas or elsewhere, they wind up making a hash of it through some form of egomania.

The problem with BMD is that they really aren't answerable to anyone.

Edited November 5, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Fondren & Main 6763]

2 hours ago, Thatguy said:

   You don't see the difference do you? Alabama was able to lure away two PROVEN football coaches in Bear Bryant and Nick Saban to a University with no redeeming qualities outside of being dedicated to the sport. Meanwhile here we are, Texas, sitting squarely in Austin, a prettier location than Bama by far. All the recruiting a man could ask for outside his door. Yet here we are struggling to get a decent coach just like we have throughout our history. We are the second weakest Blue Blood next to Michigan. Even Notre Dame, with all their academic standards, has found a way to be relevant before we have. Texas has 3 Big12 titles, tied with Baylor and 11 less than OU. We don't have the right to talk about successful teams and how they get their coaches when we aren't them. For example, OU may have had 20 years since they've won a title but they've been consistently winning the conference all that time. That's what I mean when I say we don't think we have to pay our dues. We liken ourselves to those other teams while not having their success. 

Dude, Bear Bryant was an alum.  He was never not coming.

[Thatguy 9049]

5 minutes ago, Fondren & Main said:

Dude, Bear Bryant was an alum.  He was never not coming.

We all know who Bryant was. Your assumption that he wasn't coming is just that. The point is the other blue bloods have been way more successful than we have at finding their man. We have been so bad at it that not only do we think Mack was a good coach, we haven't even come close to his awful 2 conference championships in 15 year clip since. OU was dying for us to keep Mack. 

[DanTheHorn 4971]

3 hours ago, Thatguy said:

We liken ourselves to those other teams while not having their success. 

Who is we? All I read on this board is how much we have sucked for the last 12 years. Stop making up narratives that don't exist.

By the way we are a blue blood because of history, eyeballs and perception. If we had TCUs record we would be sitting ahead of Clemson wether it was deserved or not deserved. Alabama, Michigan, Ohio State and USC have gone through periods of suckage but they never stopped being a blue blood because once earned people are just waiting for those programs to come back to their rightful place. In summary knowing one is a blue blood program does not divert from knowing we have sucked for 12 years nor does it make us wrong in our confidence that unlike aggy we will return to our rightful place of relevance.

[closetohumping 17548]

4 hours ago, Thatguy said:

   You don't see the difference do you? Alabama was able to lure away two PROVEN football coaches in Bear Bryant and Nick Saban to a University with no redeeming qualities outside of being dedicated to the sport. Meanwhile here we are, Texas, sitting squarely in Austin, a prettier location than Bama by far. All the recruiting a man could ask for outside his door. Yet here we are struggling to get a decent coach just like we have throughout our history. We are the second weakest Blue Blood next to Michigan. Even Notre Dame, with all their academic standards, has found a way to be relevant before we have. Texas has 3 Big12 titles, tied with Baylor and 11 less than OU. We don't have the right to talk about successful teams and how they get their coaches when we aren't them. For example, OU may have had 20 years since they've won a title but they've been consistently winning the conference all that time. That's what I mean when I say we don't think we have to pay our dues. We liken ourselves to those other teams while not having their success. 

I value the opinion of almost all posts.  But you’re a beating and this is a pretty intellectually dishonest post that one can shoot holes through.  I will be back 

[hobbes2702 13155]

4 hours ago, Thatguy said:

   You don't see the difference do you? Alabama was able to lure away two PROVEN football coaches in Bear Bryant and Nick Saban to a University with no redeeming qualities outside of being dedicated to the sport. Meanwhile here we are, Texas, sitting squarely in Austin, a prettier location than Bama by far. All the recruiting a man could ask for outside his door. Yet here we are struggling to get a decent coach just like we have throughout our history. We are the second weakest Blue Blood next to Michigan. Even Notre Dame, with all their academic standards, has found a way to be relevant before we have. Texas has 3 Big12 titles, tied with Baylor and 11 less than OU. We don't have the right to talk about successful teams and how they get their coaches when we aren't them. For example, OU may have had 20 years since they've won a title but they've been consistently winning the conference all that time. That's what I mean when I say we don't think we have to pay our dues. We liken ourselves to those other teams while not having their success. 

They didn’t lure Saban anywhere. He was floundering with the Dolphins and was on the verge of being fired.

This whole bit is stupid. Blue blood programs have always recycled coaches. Always.

Since Bear, Bama has had two coaches make it 3 years or more. Stallings and Saban. That’s since 1982.

Since McKay in 75 USC has had Carroll only make it more than 5 years. 

LSU had 4 coaches in the 80s and 3 in the 90s before Saban and Miles.

Since Holtz in 96 only Kelly with more than 4 at Notre Dame.

The list goes on and on

Edited November 5, 2022 by hobbes2702

[lilMAC25 3882]

25 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

They didn’t lure Saban anywhere. He was floundering with the Dolphins and was on the verge of being fired.

This whole bit is stupid. Blue blood programs have always recycled coaches. Always.

Since Bear, Bama has had two coaches make it 3 years or more. Stallings and Saban. That’s since 1982.

Since McKay in 75 USC has had Carroll only make it more than 5 years. 

LSU had 4 coaches in the 80s and 3 in the 90s before Saban and Miles.

Since Holtz in 96 only Kelly with more than 4 at Notre Dame.

The list goes on and on

[hook me 2123]

15 hours ago, Thatguy said:

  @Horn of Gabriel answered you up thread but I wanted to chime in. 

      We are in this mess because the coaching tree talks. A guy gets offered a job and he picks up the phone and calls a guy who worked here that he worked with and respects. Pick a guy. Charlie Strong. Will Muschamp. Tom Herman. Any of the coordinators that we've cycled through. They tell him what we are like and the guy says thanks but no thanks. The way we handled Mack was embarrassing. Even before Charlie lost to KU we were already courting Herman. Then we did the same thing 4 years later. 

   We are the Jerry Jones' of cfb. Constantly meddling and acting like we are better than we are. We think money is the answer to all our problems, and the coaches uninterested in coming here are silently telling us we are wrong. Salary and NIL aren't that attractive if you have no job security. Teams negatively recruit against us telling recruits our coach will soon be fired. I know that is fact as a potential recruit that we lost told me that, and why shouldn't they listen to it? We laugh at aggy for giving Jimbo a big contract but that backing of their coach beyond reason is WHY they are beating us on the recruiting trail. Right now Sark has us back in the driver's seat with recruiting but if we pull out the pitch forks recruiting will fall off. We need to realize as a collective that we go ourselves into this and we might need to give a coach a couple years extra to get ourselves out of it. Simple as that. 

The idea that you think a&m players flocked to a&m last year because they gave Jimbo 10 years & $100mm is laughably idiotic. If that were the case they wouldn't be looking at an exodus the likes of which hasn't been seen since, well, Exodus, & they wouldn't be getting their heads bashed in on the trail this year. Oh, and by the way, how's that going for them now? You want a piece of that sweet $86mm buyout they're trying to figure out a way out of now? Great example. Giving a mediocre coach more years than he deserves is a great way to be mediocre, and just to be clear I'm not ready to move on from Sark like many are. There are plenty of red flags to justify their position, but I'm all for giving coaches 3 years - especially when the offensive scheme & recruiting philosophy is as different as it is between Herman & Sark. That said, if he's still collapsing in the second half vs the likes of TTU, ISU, OSU, & UH next year I don't want to see what's going to happen to him vs. Bama, LSU, & UGA in the SEC. 

[927 E. 41st 1124]

9 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

Let's be very clear about something. Dodds was never ever ever interested in erecting a firewall/barrier between BMDs and football coaching hires. He wanted to make sure a very wealthy somebody - and better if several very wealthy somebodies - was always on the hook for football hirings and firings. That was the case with Akers/McWilliams/Mackovic and it was certainly the case with Brown. 

Dodds' job security was from pooling all the sports in the athletic department - which previously had each been responsible for their own fundraising, with most of the capital costs coming from the PUF and state legislature - into one fundraising mechanism. The Longhorn Foundation. From there, his success was measured based on how much money he brought in and how much it increased year over year. Which was staggering.

It became the modus operandi for the entire athletic department. I used to say the athletic department didn't raise money so the football team could win games. They wanted the football team to win games so they could raise more money. It's a huge distinction, and it permeated the culture. There's still vestiges of it now. To be honest, it was a much needed move and heralded UT's entry into the super rich of the college sports hierarchy. But there was never a time when Dodds' position was threatened by the moribund football program, and he made sure it stayed that way. 

In any case, Hicks and Evans were always going to be the chief decision makers regarding Mackovic's replacement. Other people had their say so, but those two made their massive campaign donations (Tom HIcks to Ann Richards, Don Evans to George Bush) to get on the BoR in the first place in large part because football was becoming an indifferent product to the administration and the powers that ran the university. For years BoR appointments had been made of people who didn't really care about football's success. With Bill Clements, orchestrator of the SMU slush fund serving two terms, Mark White, Baylor grad, and Ann Richards, Baylor grad (Tom Hicks being the exception) the BoR was filled with many political appointees who were less interested in the health of UT or its athletic programs (although there were good ones interested in the academic side, to be fair) than having the prestigious position in the first place.

I know Tom Hicks was there for both interviews, Barnett and Brown. Everyone involved flew on his plane. Darrell Royal was there for the Mack Brown interview. It's my strongest opinion that if Barnett had given the more compelling interview, or if Baddour had matched UT's offer, Gary Barnett would have been the next football coach. But it had very little to do with competing BMDs. There wasn't any real competition for who would be the deciding factor in that hiring. Hicks was Dodds' cover for that one. Just as Jim Bob Moffett had been the cover for the Mackovic hire. This idea of competing BMDs is simply untrue. Hicks was running that show with Evans on his side the whole way through. I am extraordinarily thankful for both of them, because at the time I was getting scared that football simply wasn't going to be that important any more at the University of Texas. It seems silly now, but it sure didn't feel that way in the 80s and 90s with all the enemies in the athletic department (emboldened by the Title IX settlement many of whom absolutely loathed football as anything other than a cash cow and resented the resources invested in it), on the academic side, and in the UT administration itself. And the tone is always ultimately set at the BoR level. Really, the folks who felt like Texas couldn't be a world class university if it was perceived as a football factory won some very important battles from the 70s to the 90s. It was only after Mack Brown's success galvanized the campus and demonstrated without question how empowering a successful football program could be for the institution (a narrative which is not believed by everyone, mind you, but by enough these days) that football gained its former supremacy, which in my mind hasn't left since Mack Brown was hired, even if it's still been a clusterfuck.

The bigger threat for hiring Saban was after 2013. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/sec/2013/12/13/coach-nick-saban-agrees-to-new-contract-alabama-football/4018359/

Nick Saban signs new extension on December 13.

This is after the extension sat on his desk for 8 days:

https://www.thebiglead.com/posts/nick-saban-has-had-a-contract-extension-on-his-desk-for-six-days-now-paul-finebaum-reports-update-01dmfjg2n418

I was told Saban was ready to say yes before he even received the contract extension from Alabama. Whatever Bama fans like to say, I know Bama boosters were genuinely concerned.

Steve Patterson had already been named the athletic director and was announced at a press conference on November 7.

Two days after Saban finally signs the extension, Mack Brown announces his resignation. 

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/10141946/mack-brown-says-resigned-texas-longhorns-meeting-own-standard

Mack Brown purposefully cock blocked Saban from getting the job. That's the truth of it. 

Nick Saban has always looked at the turmoil associated with Texas during that two years with disgust. All the leaks. All the different players having different objectives, with it not being clear who had the power to actually do anything. He warned Sarkisian about taking the job, although he supported him in his decision. 

BTW, it was university president Bill Powers who put the impetus on Steve Patterson to hire both an African American football coach as well as an African American basketball coach when that opportunity came up a couple of years later. 

All three of the athletic directors - Deloss Dodds, Steve Patterson, and Chris Del Conte - have tried to put a buffer between the athletic director position and the hiring of a new football coach. All three of them wanted the measure of the success of their performance to be divorced in as many ways possible from the performance on the football field. Patterson was hired specifically to cut the bloat out of the athletic department and to run it like a business. Which he did. And then he was fired for it. Thankfully. Del Conte has been a fundraiser, customer service rep, and a lubricating factor between competing interests, both inside and outside the athletic department. But you'll notice when it comes to Sarkisian, he constantly ropes in Hartzell and especially Eltife's name into the conversation. That's a political move, and a smart one at that. 

But that's also part of the issue. There's never one person who is held accountable for a poor hiring in football. It's always this broad morass, a shifting sands of responsibility. It means that whoever is hired, if they fail, even if they fail badly, no one is going to suffer the consequence of losing their job. That's just the way it is. 

Oh, now you've done it, how dare you come in here with facts and clarity... this shall not stand i tell you!

[closetohumping 17548]

Regarding Saban, I think even the bama mods at one point thought it was happening and we’re in shock.  

[closetohumping 17548]

20 minutes ago, hook me said:

The idea that you think a&m players flocked to a&m last year because they gave Jimbo 10 years & $100mm is laughably idiotic. If that were the case they wouldn't be looking at an exodus the likes of which hasn't been seen since, well, Exodus, & they wouldn't be getting their heads bashed in on the trail this year. Oh, and by the way, how's that going for them now? You want a piece of that sweet $86mm buyout they're trying to figure out a way out of now? Great example. Giving a mediocre coach more years than he deserves is a great way to be mediocre, and just to be clear I'm not ready to move on from Sark like many are. There are plenty of red flags to justify their position, but I'm all for giving coaches 3 years - especially when the offensive scheme & recruiting philosophy is as different as it is between Herman & Sark. That said, if he's still collapsing in the second half vs the likes of TTU, ISU, OSU, & UH next year I don't want to see what's going to happen to him vs. Bama, LSU, & UGA in the SEC. 

Is that what he thinks?  What a dip!!!  Let’s give sark 12 years then

[Red Five 41082]

It has always driven me crazy to hear shit like "Lulz, Saban to Texas! Haha remember that?".

Yes, I remember. He wasn't offered the job. We literally chose Charlie Fucking Strong over Nick Saban. We probably could have hired Dabo back then, too. 

[TXpride 558]

6 hours ago, Thatguy said:

   You don't see the difference do you? Alabama was able to lure away two PROVEN football coaches in Bear Bryant and Nick Saban to a University with no redeeming qualities outside of being dedicated to the sport. Meanwhile here we are, Texas, sitting squarely in Austin, a prettier location than Bama by far. All the recruiting a man could ask for outside his door. Yet here we are struggling to get a decent coach just like we have throughout our history. We are the second weakest Blue Blood next to Michigan. Even Notre Dame, with all their academic standards, has found a way to be relevant before we have. Texas has 3 Big12 titles, tied with Baylor and 11 less than OU. We don't have the right to talk about successful teams and how they get their coaches when we aren't them. For example, OU may have had 20 years since they've won a title but they've been consistently winning the conference all that time. That's what I mean when I say we don't think we have to pay our dues. We liken ourselves to those other teams while not having their success. 

Not sure what point you're trying to make, other than we all need to shut up and accept mediocrity. Not doing it. Every program with expectations fires mediocre coaches. Bama is the best example because they're the most successful, but every program that gives two shits about football does it. Only mediocre programs keep mediocre coaches.

[closetohumping 17548]

1 hour ago, Red Five said:

It has always driven me crazy to hear shit like "Lulz, Saban to Texas! Haha remember that?".

Yes, I remember. He wasn't offered the job. We literally chose Charlie Fucking Strong over Nick Saban. We probably could have hired Dabo back then, too. 

Actually some message board clowns didn’t think Dabo was good enough

[Red Five 41082]

Actually some message board clowns didn’t think Dabo was good enough

Back in 2013 I imagine I was one of them.

[closetohumping 17548]

42 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Back in 2013 I imagine I was one of them.

I don’t think I was though he wasn’t my first choice.  Charlie was my last choice

[Horn of Gabriel 1864]

3 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

They didn’t lure Saban anywhere. He was floundering with the Dolphins and was on the verge of being fired.

This whole bit is stupid. Blue blood programs have always recycled coaches. Always.

Since Bear, Bama has had two coaches make it 3 years or more. Stallings and Saban. That’s since 1982.

Since McKay in 75 USC has had Carroll only make it more than 5 years. 

LSU had 4 coaches in the 80s and 3 in the 90s before Saban and Miles.

Since Holtz in 96 only Kelly with more than 4 at Notre Dame.

The list goes on and on

Wait...blue bloods fire coaches?  No way!  No one is arguing against that.

The question is: have you seen enough from Sark now to pull the plug at year 1.5, or is that counter productive?  What is the correct amount of time vs. progress (in W/L, in recruiting, in team building, etc)?  Personally, I don't think 1.5 years is enough to make that call, yet.  My eyes see progress in recruiting, production on offense, etc.  Sark's .500 W/L record is also unacceptable, and both can be true...for now.  I think a year from now you look to see the other stuff manifesting in the record more.  But everyone seems to admit that our hiring process is random at best and broken at worst, it seems to be very luck driven.  We want to spin that wheel again?  We could end up with Charlie 2.0 taking us into the SEC.

[hobbes2702 13155]

3 minutes ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

Wait...blue bloods fire coaches?  No way!  No one is arguing against that.

The question is: have you seen enough from Sark now to pull the plug at year 1.5, or is that counter productive?  What is the correct amount of time vs. progress (in W/L, in recruiting, in team building, etc)?  Personally, I don't think 1.5 years is enough to make that call, yet.  My eyes see progress in recruiting, production on offense, etc.  Sark's .500 W/L record is also unacceptable, and both can be true...for now.  I think a year from now you look to see the other stuff manifesting in the record more.  But everyone seems to admit that our hiring process is random at best and broken at worst, it seems to be very luck driven.  We want to spin that wheel again?  We could end up with Charlie 2.0 taking us into the SEC.

People are literally arguing that our problem is that we recycle coaches and don’t have continuity. So yes people are arguing against that.
In no way is firing coaches who can’t get it done the problem. Sark will get his 3-4 to prove he can do it or not. I wouldn’t bet on him but the problem isn’t that we don’t give coaches time or that we move on too quickly. The problem is hiring mediocre to bad coaches.

Edited November 5, 2022 by hobbes2702

[immamac 43571]

Tonight could be the beginning of the turnaround. But losing to a kstate team that should be getting blown the fuck out by this team will put the nail in the coffin for me on Steve. 

[Neonmoon 38130]

Anyone still on the Steve train is a masochist. Texas getting beat down tonight. 

[Fondren & Main 6763]

7 minutes ago, immamac said:

Tonight could be the beginning of the turnaround. But losing to a kstate team that should be getting blown the fuck out by this team will put the nail in the coffin for me on Steve. 

 

[closetohumping 17548]

13 minutes ago, immamac said:

Tonight could be the beginning of the turnaround. But losing to a kstate team that should be getting blown the fuck out by this team will put the nail in the coffin for me on Steve. 

One game can’t be a referendum right?

[immamac 43571]

1 minute ago, closetohumping said:

One game can’t be a referendum right?

Losing 3 away games in the soft ass big XII is the referendum. 

[hobbes2702 13155]

25 minutes ago, immamac said:

Tonight could be the beginning of the turnaround. But losing to a kstate team that should be getting blown the fuck out by this team will put the nail in the coffin for me on Steve. 

I agree with this. It really is a chance to start showing real change that can be built upon. Prove we can do anything on the road

[Horn of Gabriel 1864]

2 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

I agree with this. It really is a chance to start showing real change that can be built upon. Prove we can do anything on the road

Amen - BTHOKSU

[Thatguy 9049]

5 hours ago, DanTheHorn said:

Who is we? All I read on this board is how much we have sucked for the last 12 years. Stop making up narratives that don't exist.

By the way we are a blue blood because of history, eyeballs and perception. If we had TCUs record we would be sitting ahead of Clemson wether it was deserved or not deserved. Alabama, Michigan, Ohio State and USC have gone through periods of suckage but they never stopped being a blue blood because once earned people are just waiting for those programs to come back to their rightful place. In summary knowing one is a blue blood program does not divert from knowing we have sucked for 12 years nor does it make us wrong in our confidence that unlike aggy we will return to our rightful place of relevance.

   Texas has been in the Big12 for 26 years and only won it 3 times. Texas has only 4 National Championships, and only one since most of us have been alive. The only Blue Bloods that have struggled this bad are Nebraska and Michigan, and we are looking a lot more like going the way of Nebraska than the way of Michigan. 

   Lastly you are on a thread that was made 6 games into a coach's tenure and then talking about Who Is We? Lol

[DanTheHorn 4971]

6 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

   Texas has been in the Big12 for 26 years and only won it 3 times. Texas has only 4 National Championships, and only one since most of us have been alive. The only Blue Bloods that have struggled this bad are Nebraska and Michigan, and we are looking a lot more like going the way of Nebraska than the way of Michigan. 

   Lastly you are on a thread that was made 6 games into a coach's tenure and then talking about Who Is We? Lol

Go read your own post in case you forgot what you said about we. It had nothing to do with this thread or Steve. Also, thanks for confirming my point we are a blue blood. You make narrative’s that don’t exist and now you make up shit your post did not say either.

Edited November 5, 2022 by DanTheHorn

[Thatguy 9049]

2 hours ago, TXpride said:

Not sure what point you're trying to make, other than we all need to shut up and accept mediocrity. Not doing it. Every program with expectations fires mediocre coaches. Bama is the best example because they're the most successful, but every program that gives two shits about football does it. Only mediocre programs keep mediocre coaches.

  It depends on where you program is. We have people already calling for the guy's head 1.5 years into his tenure while also looking at our roster and seeing how talent deficient it is in key spots. Mediocrity is one thing. Not giving a coach the time he needs to get the job done is another. Saban finished 6-5-1, 6-6, 7-5, and 6-6 in his first 4 seasons at Michigan State. If that were Texas we would've fired the greatest college football coach in history for being "mediocre". It would've been our Sam Bowie moment. 

[lilMAC25 3882]

11 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

  It depends on where you program is. We have people already calling for the guy's head 1.5 years into his tenure while also looking at our roster and seeing how talent deficient it is in key spots. Mediocrity is one thing. Not giving a coach the time he needs to get the job done is another. Saban finished 6-5-1, 6-6, 7-5, and 6-6 in his first 4 seasons at Michigan State. If that were Texas we would've fired the greatest college football coach in history for being "mediocre". It would've been our Sam Bowie moment. 

And now we are back to the “BUT NICK SABAN” bullshit.

 

 

Edited November 5, 2022 by lilMAC25

[Thatguy 9049]

6 hours ago, DanTheHorn said:

Who is we? All I read on this board is how much we have sucked for the last 12 years. Stop making up narratives that don't exist.

By the way we are a blue blood because of history, eyeballs and perception. If we had TCUs record we would be sitting ahead of Clemson wether it was deserved or not deserved. Alabama, Michigan, Ohio State and USC have gone through periods of suckage but they never stopped being a blue blood because once earned people are just waiting for those programs to come back to their rightful place. In summary knowing one is a blue blood program does not divert from knowing we have sucked for 12 years nor does it make us wrong in our confidence that unlike aggy we will return to our rightful place of relevance.

 

9 minutes ago, DanTheHorn said:

Go read your own post in case you forgot what you said about we. It had nothing to do with this thread or Steve. Also, thanks for confirming my point we are a blue blood. You make narrative’s that don’t exist and now you make up shit your post did not say either.

  I referenced the bolded in your first post when I mentioned this thread. Our attitude of thinking that because we are a Blu Blood we can do this or that or we should expect quick turnarounds on winning are exactly why we are where we are. That's what I mean when I said we liken ourselves to those other schools. Look at Nebraska right now for a reference of what can happen when you think your good name is enough to carry you through. 

 

[lilMAC25 3882]

1 minute ago, Thatguy said:

 

  I referenced the bolded in your first post when I mentioned this thread. Our attitude of thinking that because we are a Blu Blood we can do this or that or we should expect quick turnarounds on winning are exactly why we are where we are. That's what I mean when I said we liken ourselves to those other schools. Look at Nebraska right now for a reference of what can happen when you think your good name is enough to carry you through. 

 

No, we are in this spot because we make shit hires. The last time we made an actual good hire, the HC made an IMMEDIATE turnaround from a losing record to a winning record.

Edited November 5, 2022 by lilMAC25

[Thatguy 9049]

6 minutes ago, lilMAC25 said:

And now we are back to the “BUT NICK SABAN” bullshit.

 

sample size 1

 

 

  Saban is the goat, but many good football coaches had a rough first year. It's def not a sample size of one. 

[Thatguy 9049]

3 minutes ago, lilMAC25 said:

No, we are in this spot because we make shit hires. The last time we made an actual good hire, the HC made an IMMEDIATE turnaround from a losing record to a winning record.

  Not all situations are the same. It depends on the roster left to you. Ricky fucking Williams. Nuff said. 

[lilMAC25 3882]

13 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

  Saban is the goat, but many good football coaches had a rough first year. It's def not a sample size of one. 

Nick Saban DEFINITELY is a sample size of 1. 
 

aside from that, the sample size of coaches who had a rough first year and then were so bad they got fired later on absolutely dwarfs the number of coaches who had rough first seasons and then became great coach (defined here as a winning a national championship) or even GOOD HC (winning a conference championship).

Edited November 5, 2022 by lilMAC25

[TXpride 558]

32 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

  It depends on where you program is. We have people already calling for the guy's head 1.5 years into his tenure while also looking at our roster and seeing how talent deficient it is in key spots. Mediocrity is one thing. Not giving a coach the time he needs to get the job done is another. Saban finished 6-5-1, 6-6, 7-5, and 6-6 in his first 4 seasons at Michigan State. If that were Texas we would've fired the greatest college football coach in history for being "mediocre". It would've been our Sam Bowie moment. 

 

17 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

 

  I referenced the bolded in your first post when I mentioned this thread. Our attitude of thinking that because we are a Blu Blood we can do this or that or we should expect quick turnarounds on winning are exactly why we are where we are. That's what I mean when I said we liken ourselves to those other schools. Look at Nebraska right now for a reference of what can happen when you think your good name is enough to carry you through. 

 

Most of us aren't saying he should be fired this season (although if he loses out, he probably should be). We're saying we see the writing on the wall. Great coaches don't have this many red flags. And Nebraska sucks because they're in the middle of nowhere and their recruiting fell off a cliff (in addition to hiring shitty coaches). We don't have that problem and never will.

Edited November 5, 2022 by TXpride

[lilMAC25 3882]

12 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

  Not all situations are the same. It depends on the roster left to you. Ricky fucking Williams. Nuff said. 

By your own awful logic, we should have stuck it out with Mackovic. 
 

So you’re trying to claim that Mack didn’t make a difference despite the massive difference in outcomes between 97 and 98?

 

 

 

ETA: Bijan Robinson and RoJo aren’t exactly chopped liver.

Edited November 5, 2022 by lilMAC25

[hobbes2702 13155]

10 minutes ago, TXpride said:

 

Most of us aren't saying he should be fired this season (although if he loses out, he probably should be). We're saying we see the writing on the wall. Great coaches don't have this many red flags. And Nebraska sucks because they're in the middle of nowhere and their recruiting fell off a cliff (in addition to hiring shitty coaches). We don't have that problem and never will.

Why is this so difficult to understand? 
 

But also, I cannot believe continuing on this ridiculous idea that moving on from coaches is the problem when every program in history does it until they find the right person. 

Edited November 5, 2022 by hobbes2702

[USNALonghorn 5100]

2 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Why is this so difficult to understand? 
 

But also, I cannot believe continuing on this ridiculous idea that moving on from coaches is the problem when every program in history does it until they find the right person. 

I was thinking about making a sarcastic reply that we should have just kept Mack, but then I started wondering if our record over the past 9 years would have actually been better if we did…

[pyrohornIII 4839]

I haven't read the whole Manning thread on the recruiting board, so maybe this is covered ad nauseum somewhere else.  But it just seems as football savvy the Manning family is, they'd see the same red flags so many of you are pointing out and would have swayed their family star away from the trainwreck Sark seems obviously to be.  

 

I read most all of this thread and I'm not really sure which camp I am in, but it just seems they trust Sark, why shouldn't we?  Arch has more to lose than we do as fans and he's got some pretty heady advisors.    I think they see things like immamac did some time back:

 

On 10/30/2022 at 9:53 PM, immamac said:

I know everyone here loves xavier worthy and whittington and thinks omg what are we going to do without them. Wait until we get actual NFL caliber receivers going in the sark system. We have parts of the offense building and the defense is definitely developing as well. They want him to have a full cycle of high quality NFL level players that develop and are seniors. We are playing at whatever level we are right now with some dudes that happen to be real good, but didn't go through 4 real years of development or 3. 

We all bitch that sark can't win with players who aren't perfect, but eventually the level of execution will just get there - we've all seen it, players are almost always open. Blocks get missed that shouldn't get missed on assignment, less that the OL gets fucking mauled by the DL/LB/EDGE. 

Mental errors kill this team and sark doesn't know how to coach a team that is prone to mental errors by sticking to whats working instead of doing whatever the fuck it is he wants to do in a perfect world. Eventually, the theory is that the program becomes a talent factory much like Ohio St, Alabama, Michigan, Georgia where next man up is actually execute the same playbook and sit the guy making mental errors. We aren't there yet and sark can't coach a team that has that level of imperfection still. If he could this team would be stomping the shit out of everyone. 

 

[immamac 43571]

9 minutes ago, pyrohornIII said:

I haven't read the whole Manning thread on the recruiting board, so maybe this is covered ad nauseum somewhere else.  But it just seems as football savvy the Manning family is, they'd see the same red flags so many of you are pointing out and would have swayed their family star away from the trainwreck Sark seems obviously to be.  

 

I read most all of this thread and I'm not really sure which camp I am in, but it just seems they trust Sark, why shouldn't we?  Arch has more to lose than we do as fans and he's got some pretty heady advisors.    I think they see things like immamac did some time back:

 

 

anyone who thinks Sark isn't a QB whisperer is huffing glue. The dude has an incredible NFL QB draft resume. Arch wants to win, but more importantly he wants to be NFL ready in 3 years. 

[hobbes2702 13155]

No one has said he can’t coach QBs. Or offense in general. He is a creative play designer, seems excellent at pregame prep.

It also seems like he can’t figure out what to do when teams slow down the run and it’s painfully clear he doesn’t make in game adjustments.

[TankedBevo 2487]

Both Tech and Okie Lite have looked like ass since we lost to them. That's probably one of the most frustrating things about the last two years. We need to put all the good shit we're clearly capable of doing together and make it consistent 

[StrippersAndNobelPrizes 855]

1 hour ago, TankedBevo said:

Both Tech and Okie Lite have looked like ass since we lost to them. That's probably one of the most frustrating things about the last two years. We need to put all the good shit we're clearly capable of doing together and make it consistent 

Exactly! As of right now. Okie Lite has been outscored 82-10 since beating us and putting up 41 points.

[DanTheHorn 4971]

2 hours ago, Thatguy said:

 

  I referenced the bolded in your first post when I mentioned this thread. Our attitude of thinking that because we are a Blu Blood we can do this or that or we should expect quick turnarounds on winning are exactly why we are where we are. That's what I mean when I said we liken ourselves to those other schools. Look at Nebraska right now for a reference of what can happen when you think your good name is enough to carry you through. 

 

Go read what you said regarding WE and maybe the third time you read it you will get the point I made regarding your made up narrative. Going off on tangents is not a counter point. So I am done replying to tangents.

[Hank Chinaski 6324]

1 hour ago, hobbes2702 said:

It also seems like he can’t figure out what to do when teams slow down the run and it’s painfully clear he doesn’t make in game adjustments.

I agree, but I also want to see how it plays out with a consistent QB. QE is clearly very talented but his last 2 games have been shaky. It’s ok, he’s a freshman, but I still want to see what Sark does with a good (and more experienced) QB. At the risk of sounding like a Sark apologist, I still think there are a lot of plays that just aren’t being made due to poor execution. He’s not blameless, of course. (For the record, I have little faith that Sark will become a great coach; I do think there is a chance that he can be a good one.)